My philosophy for civil engineering and civics (how a community is built and managed) is based on my experience as a self-taught software engineer. K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple [and] Stupid. Adding more lines of computer code or more lines of civil code will not necessarily make the system work better. As Dr. Boris Bezier points out in "Software Testing Techniques and System Design", the bulk of an engineer's work is not in creating the system, but in removing the "bugs" (errors) that inevitably creep in during design. If we compare lines of code (computer code in a program or civil code in the form of ordinances and laws) to moving parts in machinery it makes perfect sense: more moving parts mean more possible points of failure. Dr. Bezier gave a rough rule of thumb of 1 bug per 100 lines of code, and my own experience anecdotally bears this out.
In Bar Harbor in particular, and in Maine in general, we have different groups tugging in different directions. It is a tug-of-war between those who were born here and who wish to preserve the simple way of life that makes Maine a better place to live, and those who chose to live here because life is simpler than the cities from which they fled and who fee compelled to try to force things not to change. By virtue of the act of passing a regulation to prevent change, we have already changed the character of the place. We have also created more "moving parts" in the legal system, and more possible failure points. Failure in this case means accelerated urbanization of rural areas, and the creation of more obstacles to those who want to live frugally and without needless extra complexity.
The 2010 ballot for the June 8th "Town Meeting" (in this case meeting at the polling place) is case in point of this tug-of-war, masked behind seemingly simple warrant summaries. In almost none of the warrants does the actual warrant really match the optimistic assessments of their overall effect. The majority of them show the continued success of well intentioned newcomers (those who were not born or raised here and who seem to have copious amounts of leisure time and a desire to "fix" things on behalf of those who are too busy working in summer to participate as fully in committees, boards, and "visioning sessions"). Almost all of the articles submitted to the voters add more complexity to the "Land Use Ordinance" (which is affectionately called "lose-so" by those who seem hooked on it's use as an answer to all social ills). If all these measures are passed, we will all "lose-so". :)
TOWN OF BAR HARBOR
Article 1: Election of Officers
• Since I am running for Town Council (in the hopes of adding at least one councilor in favor of simplicity), naturally I urge you to vote for James N. Riley Jr.
• Although sometimes a lightening rod for controversy over his willingness to change his mind when presented new facts (it's great if the new facts bring him around to your view, and inconvenient if the facts sway him to vote against a position you support), I believe Paul Paradis should remain on the Town Council.
• If you absolutely can't vote for Paul (because he voted against something you support, or you disagree with other decisions of his), Matt Horton and Chris Walsh both grew up here and I believe both Matt's experience as a bank manager and Chris' experiences in his family's business give them each qualifications which would be valuable on the Town Council. Although I've only met Dessa Dancy a couple of times, she has an impressive academic resume and is obviously passionate about the causes she supports.
Article 2: Changing the Town Charter
I recommend NO on Article 2.
The summary seems to inaccurately describe the role of Secretary of the Town Council as "having do duties", which is only true if the measure passes. It is the intention of the Town Charter that the Secretary of the Town Council serve as record keeper. Perhaps the role should be modernized to use electronic resources in lieu of paper, but the need to keep records is now more important than ever.
In my opinion the powers reserved for the citizens in the Town Charter "the legislative authority of the Town of Bar Harbor shall continue to be vested in the inhabitants of the Town of Bar Harbor acting by means of Town Meetings" will be further diluted by this article, encouraging even lower participation and increasing the likelihood that important decisions can be stymied by "packing" a meeting with supporters of particular interests.
Unfortunately some of our ability to actually reformulate the charter to allow broader participation through regular election (state laws which require certain votes take place in assembly styled meetings during limited hours versus allowing the type of balloting used for referendum, primary, and state-wide elections). Until we can elect state officials who refrain from dictating to towns how they should govern themselves, it seems a mistake to try to weaken our ability to introduce new warrants and issues during town meeting.
Articles 3 through 14, VOTE NO.
Possible exceptions would be Article 4, Article 7, and Article 13.
First why NO ON 14, the only non-Land Use Ordinance related warrant:
Article 14: Why I voted NO ON 14. Several years ago we voted to approve a $1 Million bond measure to allow the creation of "affordable housing" (something I voted in favor of). The project was so badly mis-managed by the individuals running the Bar Harbor Housing Authority that the Town Council (under advise from the Town Attorney) felt they could not legally release the money to that organization.
The "affordable houses" created were priced higher than my own humble fixer upper house (I've heard figures as high as $250,000 or more for the units...not my idea of affordable), and understand that the owners may not even really own their homes (some sort of organization still owns the land and has a say when the homes are sold). If this is not the result of someone lining their pockets at tax payer expense, then at best it is horrible mis-management. And so, in spite of refusal to satisfy Town Council as to what they'd done, the Council helped the Housing Authority draft a new bond measure, Article 14.
Now we see posters plastered across town calling this project a "workforce grant" and claiming it will promote "sustainable year round community". Aside from those who might benefit from this extravagant project, I do not see how this helps the workforce or the community. I urge NO ON ARTICLE 14.
And now the articles for which an exception might be made:
Article 4: I read the changes to the Town Code as adding more review board intervention in what land owners do with their land, and further complexity which ultimately hampers a self sustaining year round community. Rather than simply allowing us to engage in honest livelihoods of our own choosing, we are trying to cherry-pick which livelihoods and where. When I say I support "homesteaders" I mean people who either inherited their homes or scraped together enough to finally live the American dream. If someone doesn't want to see a farming family (in the broadest sense of the word family) owning their own farm, and making ends meet with small family restaurants, or fruit stands, or bed-and-breakfasts, perhaps they would be happier in a city. Perhaps they could buy out that family for fabulous sums of money and then do with it what they please. I went back and forth on this one. I oppose the added complexity, and am uncomfortable with the way so many of these warrants have been worded to require us to accept things we oppose in order to get the issue we really want voted on tacked on as a consolation. Were I on Town Council I would vote *against* warrants which did not more clearly separate issues. I marked this article "no" but considered getting a replacement ballot to change my vote on this issue. Consistent with my philosophy of trying to put a stop to stampeding Land Use Ordinance (LUO = "lose-so") additions I will probably cast the ballot as marked. The "cherry picking" of locations and the fact that the warrant's most lenient use says "Activity or structure requires approval through site plan review process before it may be commenced or built" (site review is that process which requires submitting 10 copies of plans to the planning department and paying what I believe is a $100 fee) leaves me unconvinced this is really addressing the overarching problem of excessive restrictions on those of us trying to support ourselves through lawful use of our own land.
Article 7: Town Hill seems to have more than its fair share of those who have retired to Bar Harbor with ample leisure time and the luxury of not working if they chose. Perhaps this is a mis-impression on my part. There are plenty in Town Hill who are working folk, and who grew up here, and who share my dismay at those who move here for a simple way of life and then set to work to complicate it. The best argument I've heard so far in favor of the new Town Hill "mini-plan" is that is that by allowing controlled commercial development we may prevent the alternative of lots being subdivided and the area turning into suburbia by the sea.
If residential growth continues, ground water and septic issues will probably accelerate the need to extend water and sewer services, and create a newer population whose votes may well reverse those we are all casting now. They may want a Hannaford's, a Walmart, a McDonald's. The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime, and that growth is not slowing. We have deforested much of the natural forest that existed decades ago. As the planet's population grows, the perception of what constitutes dense development will change too. Are we really stopping these real world changes with new regulations, or are we simply limiting the options of those who live here now?
I marked my ballot YES on Article 7, against my own better judgement. There is obviously a passionate and vocal group in Town Hill convinced that this urban style of planning and hyper-regulation will make them content. I remain unconvinced. Perhaps they can allow us to see through example the problems with this approach, that (borrowing from "Chaos Theory") this is a case where non-linear determinism will come in to play ("non linear determinism" can be exemplified by trying to get a speck of dust off the surface of your glass of milk...the motions of your finger will determine the behavior of the speck in your milk, but it is very non-linear behavior...rarely moves as you had hoped).
Article 13: The CAT Ferry Terminal is a perfect example of the illusion of control that is so difficult to let go of. The CAT was a private business, and they exercised their prerogative of closing their doors. This notion that we can control which businesses we will see in Bar Harbor next year through changes to Town Code this year, is a mild form of self deception. It won't kill us, but it can make us very unhappy if we cannot let go of it.
The changes proposed to the narrow strip of land which includes the Ferry Terminal property would not have been necessary if we hadn't gone so overboard trying to control that area to begin with. It's zoned "residential". It's full of hotels and a ferry terminal, and maybe one private residence. See how well that works? All the "residential" designation did is to make all those hotels (and the ferry terminal) fall under the category of "non-conforming use". That is a bureaucratic term which means if you want to change almost anything, you must go before a planning board or a review board (which costs time and money).
In spite of my reservations, I voted YES on Article 13.
Why VOTE NO on all the Land Use Ordinance changes: The changes represent the continuation of efforts to "fix" things by neighbors telling neighbors what to do. It is born of desire to "keep things the way they are" and the belief that passing new laws will accomplish this. By virtue of changing the regulations we have already defeated the intention of preserving things as they were. Decades of changes to laws and land use ordinances have not stopped change, and in fact they have accelerated the flight of working class poor from the island.
It is not the rules, or the roads, the buildings, or even the green space that make this a town. It is the people. Take the people away and you have no Town of Bar Harbor. A self sustaining community is one which takes care of itself. This does not mean charging someone $100 to paint their own house, or a sign, and another $100 if one of us didn't like the color they chose and they really did and now have to appeal the decision. With all the natural beauty which we have a short walk away, why are we wasting time fretting about the size or color of our neighbor's barn? Why do we have to be upset when someone puts out a lemonade stand, or sells wares from a cart, or wants to put a restaurant on the edge of their farm? No lasting satisfaction will come from bossing neighbors around. True contentment comes from within.
STATE OF MAINE
Governor: Since I currently caucus with the Republican Party, I voted for Steve Abbott for Governor over Peter Mills (two socially moderate fiscal conservatives) and did so because Senator Mills voted in favor of the trojan horse tax bill which will be repealed if the Citizens Veto on Question 1 is passed. Had I caucused with the Democratic Party (which I have in the past) I would probably have voted for Rosa Scarcelli (she comes across as intelligent and pragmatic).
Question 1: Please VOTE YES ON QUESION 1. I refer to the tax bill which is repealed by this "Citizens Veto" as a "trojan horse" because (like many of the "lose-so" warrants on the Bar Harbor ballot) it gives with one hand and takes with the other. On the surface the "tax reform" bill lowers everyone's income tax by $600. But then it adds over 100 new sales taxes (including including auto repair labor, eating out, movie tickets, safe deposit boxes, dry cleaning) *and* it gets rid of itemized deductions including home mortgage. Now if you drive an old clunker of a car and own your own home like I do, that "tax break" doesn't sound like so much of a break.
Because we are vetoing a bad bill with this Question, we must VOTE YES ON 1 to defeat the trojan horse tax law. A new tax on dining out and a 70% tax on candy? That is not the sweet deal proponents of the bill (opponents of this question) claim. Those trying to stop the Citizens Veto would have you believe that repealing the bad tax law would increase income tax. Don't be fooled. VOTE YES ON QUESTION 1, veto the new taxes.
BOND MEASURES (Questions 2 through 5):
When we pass a bond measure what we are doing is borrowing more money, which will have to be repaid later. The only source of revenue for a government is taxes and fees. In other words the money comes from us, we will have to repay their borrowing. Bond measures touting "Federal Matching Funds" are really touting money which the Federal Government either borrowed (and we will have to repay) or taxed us to get.
It is for this reason that I recommend VOTE NO on QUESTIONS 2 - 5.
The best thing we can do to promote a sustainable economy in Maine is by making it easier for Mainers to start and join businesses. We will have more money to start our own businesses if we pay less out in taxes. Businesses will have more money to hire us if they pay less taxes. More businesses will come to Maine if they we stop trying to pay all our bills from their checkbook as soon as they get here. We can't make businesses come here, we can only make our state more inviting. We cannot force individuals to start their own businesses, we can only make it easier to do so.
I have both supported myself through consulting work, and punched a time clock working for someone else. I would much rather work for myself, even when the hours are longer and the pay is less reliable. I know from experience that the more obstacles in our way, the harder it is for us to succeed. There are no guarantees of outcome in private ventures, and we have limited ability to influence future events. Rather than saying "there ought to be a law" when faced with problems we need to say "let's find a solution". Rather than asking others to pay for the things we think we need, we need to find ways to pay our own way, and be willing to be content with what we have if we ourselves cannot afford more.
